Consider the following three statements, namely S1, S2 and S3 :
S1. Protecting the environment is an existential exigency for humans, given the impact of environmental degradation on climate change.
S2. Scientific consensus has not been achieved with regard to the extent of the contribution of human intervention to climate change.
S3. Environmental activism includes climate alarmism and other extremist points of view that often become the focus of climate change deniers.

Which of the following relationships based on the statements given above is/are correct?
1. S3 is a counterpoint to S1
2. S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2
3. S2 could be the reason for S3

Select the answer using the code given below.

Correct Option: (a) 2 and 3 only

Let's evaluate the statements S1, S2, S3 and their relationships. S1 states that environmental protection is an existential necessity due to climate change impacts. S2 states scientific consensus lacks regarding the exact extent of human intervention contribution to climate change. S3 states environmental activism includes climate alarmism and extremist points of view that become the focus of climate change deniers. Let's check relationship 1: 'S3 is a counterpoint to S1' - S3 talks about alarmism and deniers, while S1 talks about existential necessity; S3 is not a direct counterpoint to the necessity of environmental protection. So 1 is incorrect. Relationship 2: 'S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2' - S3 discusses climate activism and deniers, which directly relates to the debate surrounding S1 and S2, so they are connected. Thus 2 is incorrect. Relationship 3: 'S2 could be the reason for S3' - The lack of complete scientific consensus on human contribution extent (S2) often fuels climate skepticism, deniers, and conversely radical alarmism (S3). Therefore, S2 can indeed be a contributing context or reason for the phenomena described in S3. Thus, only 3 is correct. Option (a) 2 and 3 only? Wait, if 2 is incorrect and 3 is correct, let's check option (d) 3 only.